Weiss notes Sarsour’s national prominence among progressives as a leader of the Women’s March last January. Then she says that Sarsour is a purveyor of “hate.” The very first count against Sarsour? Anti-Zionism.

There are comments on her Twitter feed of the anti-Zionist sort: “Nothing is creepier than Zionism,” she wrote in 2012.

The article goes on to rake up a lot of old tweets and associations on Sarsour’s part. Including kinship to Congressman Keith Ellison, whom Weiss also smears:

Keith Ellison, a man with a long history of defending and working with anti-Semites, was almost made leader of the Democratic National Committee.

That sounds a lot like what Haim Saban said about Ellison at the Brookings Institution last year: “he is clearly an anti-Semite, an anti-Israel individual,” though pretending to be “more of a Zionist than Herzl, Ben-Gurion and Begin combined.”

Bari Weiss’s bold and entitled attack on Sarsour is sure to get a lot of pushback from progressives in days to come. The article is a now-textbook attack on Palestinians, for it argues that Sarsour is an anti-Semite because she does not support the subjugation of her own people, Palestinians (as Donald Johnson wrote to us yesterday).

We would like to make two points about the article.

First, Weiss (and Saban before her) both took their stand on Zionism. The American mainstream is finally having an argument about Zionism, and it’s about time. Zionism is the religious nationalist belief system that supports the Jewish state in Israel; many older American Jews are adherents of that belief (along with some Christians too); and the ideology needs to be confronted and scrutinized. Are Jews really unsafe in the West? Then what about the great success of Jews in America — as a minority with rights in a liberal democracy? Is a Jewish state necessary for Jewish survival? What about when that state discriminates against its non-Jewish citizens and imposes Jim Crow policies and worse across the occupied territories — what does that persecution do to the Jewish future? And — remember that this discussion is now taking place in the United States — what is the required role of the world’s leading superpower in maintaining a regime so disliked by so many of its subjects?

So we are thankful that Bari Weiss is so upset about Sarsour. These people should be debating Zionism in forums across the land.

The second point is that Bari Weiss is a powerful person inside the mainstream media, and she is a pro-Israel apparatchik, and has a long history of attacking Palestinians and their friends. She has gone after such leading intellectuals as Joseph Massad, Rashid Khalidi, Nadia Abu El Haj, Timothy Mitchell and Lila Abu-Lughod, building a handsome resume at the pro-Israel site Campus Watch. Stand up for Palestinian rights and this editor advancing the aims of Hasbara Central will take you on and call you a purveyor of “hate.” Bari Weiss has a lot of energy for this fight, and she has used it to try and keep liberal Zionists and right-wing Zionists in the same camp — against the so-called anti-Zionist “haters” in the wilderness. And it’s the family line: her parents have led missions to Israel.

She is hardly the only pro-Israel ideologue at the New York Times. No, there is a rich pedigree. But what does it tell you that such a smear artist has a prominent place at the country’s leading newspaper? The Times has great affinity for Zionism; it has several Zionist columnists; four of its reporters have had children serving in the Israeli army, and it has no anti-Zionist columnist, though now and then it runs a token piece with that point of view.

Yet the battle is on. There are surely folks inside the Times who have growing doubts about Zionism. We might even expect defenders of Linda Sarsour to speak up at the paper. Here’s Max Fisher, coming to Sarsour’s defense.

The latest attempt to tear down @lsarsour appears to turn on the fact that she once made a joke about shariah and usury

Have no doubt about it; Sarsour’s presence at the Women’s March was a historic event. Here was a pro-Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) Palestinian woman who was NOT marginalized from a leading stage because of her views. In the past, the pro-Israel lobby has been able to sideline such figures from the progressive liberal scene: Andrew Young, Cynthia McKinney, Jimmy Carter, and Keith Ellison, to name a few. While Samantha Power and Chuck Hagel only attained high office after renouncing earlier statements critical of Israel or the lobby.

The pro-Israel camp did not succeed in marginalizing Sarsour, and they know how important that failure is; they are now struggling to reinforce a red line.

Advertising

About James North and Philip Weiss

Posted In:

65 Responses

You guys are optimists. There will only be a debate if enough people call her out for it.

Weiss herself does not want a debate– as you say, she is on a mission to marginalize her enemies. She mentions the antiZionist tweet first and then quickly moves on to Sarsour’s alleged support for Shariah law and then there is a reference to genital mutilation and later cop killing. I don’t follow Sarsour so I don’t know about what she has or hasn’t said but it is clear what Weiss is doing. She wants her readers to lump all these things together as examples of hate, not something any good liberal would want to touch with a barge pole. The messaging on antiZionism as evil is almost subliminal. It’s there, and then she goes into all the other topics. Antizionism, genital mutilation, oppression of women, copkilling–all the same, nothing to debate.

Looks like the princess has grown up and is full of herself. She is on top of the heap and intends to stay there. And working with friends, basking in the reflective glow of kinship while promoting the victimhood narrative. It is all about power.

The attack on Linda Sarsour included two points not covered by North and Weiss: 1. Sarsour’s vicious attack on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and 2. her celebration of Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur). Since these two points are ignored, may we assume that they oppose Sarsour on these two points or may we assume that they agree with Sarsour on these points. Maybe North and Weiss would do us the favor of saving us from making assumptions.

” She has dismissed the anti-Islamist feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the most crude and cruel terms, insisting she is “not a real woman” and confessing that she wishes she could take away Ms. Ali’s vagina — this about a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a girl in Somalia.”
But just last month, Ms. Sarsour proved that her past is prologue. On July 16, the official Twitter feed of the Women’s March offered warm wishes to Assata Shakur. “Happy birthday to the revolutionary #AssataShakur!” read the tweet, which featured a “#SignOfResistance, in Assata’s honor” — a pink and purple Pop Art-style portrait of Ms. Shakur, better known as Joanne Chesimard, a convicted killer who is on the F.B.I.’s list of most wanted terrorists.

Like many others, CNN’s Jake Tapper noticed the outrageous tweet. “Shakur is a cop-killer fugitive in Cuba,” he tweeted, going on to mention Ms. Sarsour’s troubling past statements. “Any progressives out there condemning this?” he asked.

In the face of this sober criticism, Ms. Sarsour cried bully: “@jaketapper joins the ranks of the alt-right to target me online. Welcome to the party.”

these are quotes from ms. bari weiss in the nyt opinion piece. i assume people have read it, but include the quotes here for those who are too lazy to read the article in question and instead only have time to cast aspersions.

I researched the Chesimard/Shakur trials. I am not convinced the woman ever received a fair trial.

In addition, I come from Israel where cops, paramilitary, and the IDF routinely murder harmless and innocent people of the wrong ethnic background. I have murdered unarmed men, women, and children when I was an IDF soldier.

US police have been so involved in the reenslavement of African Americans since the end of the Reconstruction that assuming the US police represent the good guys in dealing with African Americans is a dubious position to take.

Why should they do anything of the sort? They can give their opinions if they want on these other topics , if they want to do the research necessary to determine just exactly what Sarsour thinks but the issue isn’t whether Sarsour is above criticism. Maybe she has said stupid or indefensible things or maybe Weiss is distorting what she said or maybe it is a bit of both. The point is that Bari Weiss kicks off her attack by stating that antizionism is a form of ” hate”‘ equivalent to supporting genital mutillation and cop killing. Do you understand the extraordinary level of arrogance it takes for Weiss to accuse a Palestinian American of hate because she doesn’t respect Zionism?

Also, Yonah, the assumption Ms. Weiss makes is that some people have views which are so indecent they shouldn’t be tolerated in political life. Does this also apply to people who are so lacking in basic empathy they think it is an outrage that a Palestinian despises Zionism?

And what about politicians and pundits who think that only antisemitism could explain why people want to use traditional nonviolent modes of protest against Israel? In other words, Palestinians don’t have any right to use pressure on their own behalf and anyone who thinks they do must be an antisemite. It’s almost like the mainstream in America thinks Palestinians are subhuman.

What is bad about the Weiss column is that she is speaking from a position of privilege and she is totally oblivious of the fact. Or maybe not. People like Sarsour go against the natural order of things, with her critical tweets about Zionism. It is up to Bari Weiss to restore balance to the force.

And before you ask, I had never heard of the cop killing case. I don’t sympathize with cop killers, but I also don’t have any interest in going through the details of the case. Maybe Sarsour was wrong for all I know. On Ali, I have the impression she is the Gilad Atzmon figure for Islam. I have little interest in her or him. Whether Sarsour was nasty I don’t know. Sarsour might well have said stupid or insensitive things. If so, she is no different from most mainstream figures– she has just been insensitive in ways that offend the mainstream. Treating Palestinians with contempt and condescension is the mainstream norm, so Bari Weiss has nothing to worry about.

Yonah, your language shows you are deeply uncomfortable with the issue here, so you employ distraction and trivializing words to evade the point of the post. You want it to be about attacking and defending. Anything rather than face the issue.

The issue is that many defenders of Israel employ arguments that are obviously and transparently racist and they get away with it because we are socialized to accept their framing or risk being called haters or antisemites. So Bari Weiss calls Sarsour a hater because she said Zionism was creepy, but Zionism is the ideology that justified the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and their continued oppression and Sarsour is of Palestinian background. And this isn’t just Bari Weiss vs Linda Sarsour. This racist attitude is pervasive in the US. We have a situation where racists managed to convince most liberals that the group being oppressed is acting hateful if they criticize the ideology that justifies their oppression.

But by all means, try to make this post about something trivial, rather than an example of pervasive racism. It’s your best option if you don’t want to confront it.

Bari weiss is not someone I could pick out of a lineup. Linda sarsour is famous. Sorry if I focus on the famous person rather than someone who is not famous.my opinion of sarsour changed mostly based on the black liberation army lady. The topic also made me think about hirsi ali. Sorry if my reaction does not fulfill your standards. I know that you focus on the nyt and its biases. Good for you. That is not my thing. I react to every morsel of information and the morsels of interest to me were about sarsour and not the nyt.

|| yonah fredman: Donald- Weiss and North have therefore succeeded in attacking the NYT and Bari Weiss, but they have not succeeded in defending Sarsour. ||

Do you consistently argue that opposition to supremacism, colonialism and (war) crimes equals hate, or do you hypocritically do so only when these acts of injustice and immorality are committed by and for Jews?

You just did it again, Yonah. You trivialized the issue of pervasive racism against Palestinians. In fact, you sidestepped it with some silliness about who is more famous. Evidently the racism issue is either unimportant to you or else, and I would prefer to believe this, it makes you uncomfortable so you prefer to dodge it.

Bari weiss is an idiot for considering sarsour’s antizionism a form of hate. Bari weiss should contemplate walking 30 meters in the shoes of a palestinian, but she is a propagandist.
And you, Donald johnson, must’ve been one hell of a boring preacher in a previous life and at this rate in the next life too.

The attack on Linda Sarsour included two points not covered by North and Weiss…

The point of the article is that Bari Weiss presents Sarsour’s anti-Zionist comments as an example of “hate”. Of course, wishing to take away someone’s vagina is outrageous. But it is wrong to claim that calling Zionism “creepy” is equally outrageous. You will agree that Bari Weiss is mixing two very different things to try and equate them.

Assata Shakur devoted her life to the black liberation struggle, and as a result was targeted like so many other activists by J. Edgard Hoover’s notorious COINTELPRO, which was responsible for numerous grave violations of civil and human rights. Contrary to Yonah’s claim she was never convicted of killing the police officer, but under a vague “aiding and abetting” statute. Moreover the entire incident in which the incident took place is surrounded by controversy. Assata’s groups car was stopped on pretexts similar to what has led to numerous killings by police officers who then lied about the incident. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur)

Citing such cases leads one to suspect that extreme right politics, including islamophobia, and persecution of black liberation fighters are just fine with Yonah.

Citing such cases leads one to suspect that extreme right politics, including islamophobia, and persecution of black liberation fighters are just fine with Yonah.

Considering that colonial invasion, war of aggression, apartheid, genocidal practices, instigating aggressive war by other states, parasitism, and the long list of Zionist habits is all left-leaning liberal with Yonah, there should be no surprise there.

Great rebuttal to Yonah and other neocons that use these arguments: “The idea that ‘cop killers’, ‘FBI fugitives’ and ‘domestic terrorists’–all neat little phrases that do the thinking for the reader–are evil and any praise of them makes one persona non grata is simply taken for granted. Any robust discussion … is irrelevant. The FBI said so, that’s The Official Narrative, and Sarsour and other Women’s March leaders should submit to it or be vanquished from polite society.” The entire article is worth reading because it exposes the whole gang of former cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq for the hypocrites they are. (http://www.alternet.org/media/pundits-continue-mccarthyite-smears-against-womens-march)

I thought the Women’s March was about peaceful protest. The movement with which Joanne Chesimard Assata Shakur is associated with is revolutionary and violent. To send shout outs to her negates the nonviolent nature of the Women’s March movement. If one is nonviolent as a tactic, then such a shout out makes sense, if one is nonviolent in principle such a shout out is hypocritical.
Then to attack Jake Tapper as alt right, shows that Linda Sarsour is intemperate.
Yes, the main concern shown by North and Weiss regards Bari Weiss and the New York Times. I accept that. But those who would defend Linda Sarsour’s tweets logically either advocate violent revolution or hypocrisy.

If you want to campaign against revolutionaries, against the use of force to resist uniformed murderers, etc. with no direct connection to Palestine, there are oodles of web sites out there where you’ll be welcomed with open arms (and would even be paid if you can write.)

It’s boring enough to listen to you fulminating against resistance to Zionist invasion.

Simply put, Zionism says that non Jews are either not as as advanced or as safe as Jews are in sharing real power in the state of Israel. Non Jews in Israel must be kept subservient to Jews to deny them access to this power. By its very nature, Zionism is discriminatory and no different, and no better, than any other ideology that places one group above all others.

Zionists can protest all they want about how Jews cannot survive without their own country. But, when you break it all down, they are really conveying the following, fundamentally discriminatory and racist, message to the outside world, ” We don’t consider you, as non Jews, our equals that can be trusted to share power with us. And, so, we must have our own state privileged towards our own kind”.

Yes, let’s have an open debate about this and see how Zionists can justify such a hateful, tribalist ideology while claiming to be the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’.

Donald is right, unless people call her on her lack of sound reasoning ability, she will soldier on using the hysterical spittle spewing bullying technique that others like her…and Trump…find so effective.

At the risk of relitigating Shakur’s entire criminal trial and conviction, it’s important to note the black activist — born Joanne Chesimard and currently living in exile in Cuba — may not have gotten a fair shake. Convicted of murder by an all-white jury in 1977 for shooting and killing a New Jersey state trooper in 1973, Shakur and her supporters have maintained her innocence for decades.

The evidence in her case casts enough doubt to suggest she may have been scapegoated. Most damning, forensically, is that Shakur’s bullet wounds seemed to support her claim that her hands were raised when the trooper shot her, according to the New York Times; further, no gun powder residue was found on her hands. Throughout the proceedings, Shakur said she did not handle a firearm during the encounter.

The trial was widely denounced as a racist witch hunt at the time, and Shakur’s cohorts in the Black Liberation Army broke her out of prison in 1979. Shakur’s struggle has since become rallying point for activists, with “Assata’s Chant” — a sort of protest mantra — becoming central to the Black Lives Matter movement.

That Weiss could see this information and deduce that Shakur is, unequivocally, a cop killer and terrorist suggests an abiding trust in the American criminal justice system people of color have little reason to share. For centuries, the black experience especially has been defined by wanton brutality and railroading at the hands of police, prosecutors and judges. The 1970s were no exception.

Yet Weiss presumes an all-white jury’s verdict about a black activist in the ’70s — based on disputable evidence, no less — is conclusive. She also, apparently, believes that when the police label someone a “terrorist,” it is a matter of fact rather than of politics. “Last I checked … [criticizing a domestic terrorist] was a matter of basic decency and patriotism,” Weiss wrote. But if Weiss’s patriotism and understanding of guilt mean having blind faith in a system that brutalizes people of color, what use is it for women who don’t look like her?

She is hardly the only pro-Israel ideologue at the New York Times. No, there is a rich pedigree. But what does it tell you that such a smear artist has a prominent place at the country’s leading newspaper? The Times has great affinity for Zionism

jon: Why should it matter if she is a “pro-Israel ideologue”

Why should it matter that such a smear artist has a prominent place at the country’s leading newspaper?

“As a member of Assata’s New Jersey trial legal defense team, and her appeal lawyer, I think a correct statement of the circumstances of New Jersey Trooper Werner Foerster’s death as established by exhibits, trial testimony and forensic evidence and that conclusively repudiate the revisionist lies now being advanced by the State of New Jersey as “fact”, need to be repeated.”

“1. The finger print analyses of every gun and every piece of ammunition found at the scene showed there were no fingerprints of Assata found on any of them. (The official analyses admitted into evidence)

2. Neutron Activation Analysis taken immediately after Assata was taken to the hospital that night showed there was no gun power residue on her hands. Effectively refuting the possibility that she had fired a gun. (The official analyses were admitted into evidence)

3. As a result of the bullet Harper shot under her armpit, while her arms were raised in, her median nerve was severed, immediately paralyzing her entire right arm, shattering her clavicle, and lodging in her chest so close to her heart that an operation to remove it was not feasible. A neurologist testified to that fact at the trial.

4. A pathologist testified that “There is no conceivable way that the bullet could have traveled over to the clavicle if her arm was down. That trajectory is impossible.”

5. A surgeon testified that “it was anatomically necessary that both arms be in the air for Ms. Chesimard to have received the wounds she did.”

The state offered no expert witnesses to refute this medical testimony.

6. Photographs depicting the gunshot entry wound under her armpit and the entry wound of the bullet Harper shot into her back were admitted into evidence during the trial.

Therefore, since no evidence existed that proved Assata fired the bullet that killed Trooper Foerster, why was she found guilty of his murder? There are several explanations:

The first is that the climate of hatred, prejudice and racism that had so contaminated the Middlesex County jury pool in 1973 that a change of venue was ordered, continued to exist in 1977. The unanimous opinion of the 1973 jury pool was “If she’s Black, she’s guilty.” After three defense motions for change of venue, Judge Leon Gerofsky granted the motion, stating, “It was almost impossible to obtain a jury here comprised of people willing to accept the responsibility of impartiality so that defendants will be protected from transitory passion and prejudice.” The trial was then moved to Morris County where Assata’s trial was severed from Sundiata’s because of her pregnancy.

In 1977 Assata began trial for the second time in this same Middlesex County, and this time jury nullification was insured: The jurors chosen to determine Assata’s guilt or innocence consisted of five jurors who were either relatives or close personal friends of state troopers or of state law enforcement officers.

However, Assata was not convicted of firing the shot that killed Trooper Foerster. She was convicted as an accomplice to his murder under New Jersey’s “aiding and abetting” statute. Under New Jersey law, if a person’s presence at the scene of a crime can be construed as “aiding and abetting” the crime, that person can be convicted of the substantive crime itself. Judge Theodore Appleby charged the jury that they were permitted to speculate that Assata’s “mere presence” at a scene of violence, with weapons in the vehicle, was sufficient to sustain a conviction of the murder of Trooper Foerster. She was also convicted of possession of weapons – none of which could be identified as having been handled by her and of the attempted murder of Trooper Harper, who had sustained a flesh wound at the time of the shootout.”

Jon, I’ve been fixing a squeaky floor, so I’m too tired to read yet another tedious article about some NYT writer I’ve never heard of. Could you indulge me in pointing out where the article suggests that the pro-Israel ideology of the writer is relevant to the truth of her accusations? Then I shall give you my expert opinion.

“where the article suggests that the pro-Israel ideology of the writer is relevant to the truth of her accusations? Then I shall give you my expert opinion”

I commit one little solecism and it comes to this, so important to maintain standards, I see that now. Poor Jon

In mitigation I would point that 66 is an American where the distinction between argument and opinion is rarely observed, save by some “elitists” so dig up that quote now 66 theres a dear, Mr Roha is hard but fair… and you see…there will be no further solecisistic activity here today, already I have progressed, I always benefit from a firm hand.

the point of a nyt op-ed laden with accusation is to move the public discussion to those accusations — to get a reaction — to (hopefully if it doesn’t backfire) keep the ball in your own (pro israel) court.

i think it’s fairly clear b.weiss is in for a fight. she’s got her important establishment soap box and she’s using it pull the rug out of a palestinian leader of the left flank, the flank her neocon establishment ‘centrist’ part of the dem party is trying to take down.

(my bold)

Weiss appeared on a National Review podcast and said directly what her goal is. She wants to reach the Democratic establishment: New York Times readers and Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

Weiss wants them to “disavow” Sarsour because she is a “strident anti-Zionist”. Weiss said, “I wrote the piece to find out what Kirsten Gillibrand has to say about all this. Her, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi… If I can get a reaction from Kirsten Gillibrand to this piece, that would be a goal.”

This is what is politically significant about Bari Weiss’s article: she is asserting the power of the pro-Israel wing of the Democratic establishment, in the establishment newspaper, at a time when things are up for grabs in the Democratic base– and when Kirsten Gillibrand is being targeted by AIPAC for stepping back from Israel support.

So even though Bari Weiss is a “neoconservative” (according to The Week) and worked at the conservative Wall Street Journal and is doing a podcast with conservatives at the National Review, she is actually trying to win battles in the Democratic Party.

the whole article is good. but i understand why you’d rather discuss (“confront” in hasbrat lingo) the lobby lapdog smear merchant’s accusations.

Since Ms. Weiss is still fairly young, I wonder if in her next 50-60 or so years of life, she will someday repent her smug, intense racism.

Her much-older husband Jason Jacob Kass is an environmental engineer and the founder of a group devoted to sanitation infrastructure, Toilets For Change. His Intelius page lists “Causes Jason Cares About”: “Children,” “Disaster and Humanitarian Relief,” “Economic Empowerment,” “Environment,” “Health,” and “Poverty Alleviation.”

In every one of those areas his wife’s racist beliefs are causing massive harm. Presumably, he shares her beliefs, but Jason Kass doesn’t write for the New York Times, so without further evidence we really don’t know. Anyway, he claims to want just and fair sanitation, and Bari Weiss clearly just doesn’t give a crap.

Anyway, stellar work by Bari Weiss and the at least one racist troll on this page in setting up the proper requirements for seeking fair and just treatment. Before the racist zionists can be challenged, every single one of their challengers must be 100 percent free of imperfection. What a sense of fairness on the part of this Bari Weiss! It’s as if it was dictated to her by Israel’s propaganda ministry! (It probably was.)

And the Palestinians, too, must be free of imperfection before they “deserve” the human justice that I would have thought all people deserve. So, according to Bari Weiss, Palestinians are primitive subhumans and all of them, because of the actions and beliefs of a few, are devoted to violence and the subjugation of women. Etc., etc., I am sure.

Naturally, the same standards are never applied to, say, settlers. I’m sure settlers are super-dooper all about female empowerment. Maybe Bari Weiss can go live among them–dress modestly, hide her hair beneath a scarf, keep herself separate from her male superiors. I’m sure she would love it!

So, if one expresses “hate” for a person, then there would be an inquiry as to what did the “hated” person do to attract this intense dislike. Hate can be overdone, of course; that would be over-reaction.

If one expresses “hate” for a group of people, then there would be an inquiry as to the group behavior, with special attention to the possibility of the mathematical concept of, “small sample error”, leading a person to condemn all of the group – in error. The small sample error is regrettable but is so commonly occurring that members of a group or association are well advised to discipline their membership to avoid behavior that, in biblical terms, “gives scandal” to adversely affect the public perception of their group.

This “hate speech thing” is, take your pick, a canard or a red herring.

As an aside: invoking God to prepare for you a banquet in full view of your enemies, is for no apparent purpose other than for spite – perhaps an example of “hate speech”. Psalm 23:5

Robert Sapolsky, writing about John Newton (who wrote Amazing Grace), tells how he started life as a slaver, and it took him 34 years to become an abolitionist. Like most people, his moral compass takes time – a lot of time – to point in the right direction.
It’s news to me that Chuck Schumer ever said anything critical of Israel! Maybe there’s hope for him.

As for Linda Sarsour, and other Palestinians who (surprise!) are anti-Zionists, think of Ahmed Ould Abdel Aziz, a Mauritanian imprisoned in Guantanamo for 13 years. He was cleared for release in 2009, but the US considered him an “intractable terrorist” – he said things like “If I’m tortured, I would want to kill you.” The DOD resisted releasing him; someone there said, “Well, one thing that would help is if he would start expressing appreciation for the United States.”
(From the New Yorker, 1 August 2016, Connie Bruck, “The Failure of Guantanamo.”) I’m not making this up.

If that’s true, yes. I am qualifying everything I say here because I don’t have the time to look into the cop killing accusations from both sides, but suppose Sarsour is dead wrong. Then go ahead and criticize her for that issue.

But don’t surrender to the bigots. It is a kind of false pragmatism that says we should let the bigots frame the debate. If Sarsour really is wrong on the other issues, Bari Weiss is still a racist for claiming Sarsour’s antiZionist tweets are hate. It really is possible to hold multiple thoughts in one’s head simultaneously, but Ms. Weiss is counting on people to read her column and lump everything into one big category called ” hate”.

|| Vera Gottlieb: To all these hate mongers I say this: time to re-read the Ten Commandments. … ||

Zionists prefer their own set of commandments which include the following:
– People who choose to be/come Jewish are entitled to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.
– Acts of injustice and immorality committed against Jews justify acts of injustice and immorality committed by Jews.
– Jews are entitled to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

This was encouraging. I don’t know who Ryan Cooper is beyond having seen the name but in this piece about the fight between centrist and leftist Democrats, Cooper mentions Bari Weiss’s piece and he portrays it as the cynical attack it was–

This article written by bari weiss has an interesting warning at the end…….

“Jews on the left, particularly in recent years, have attempted to square this growing discomfort by becoming more anti-Israel. But if history has taught the Jews anything it’s that this kind of contortion never ends well.”

The tale of the 2 weiss’s perfectly sums up the challenges jews face in there relationship with judaism and israel.bear in mind that both come from different media places.bari from tablet magazine and phil from the kushner owned ny observer.draw your own conclusions.

A lot of tit-for-tat in here as each poster tries to one-up the other. Rather than relying on the NYT for all of your obvious one-sided commentaries, I suggest that you start reading some books on Palestine/Israel to get to the nitty gritty of all the issues involved in their dispute. I have in my small library of books the following two which will settle for all times the ludicracy of who is a Jew and who isn’t, and in turn, should settle for all times the stupidity of who in that country is the racist and who isn’t. Here they are:
Shlomo Sand: The Invention of the Land of Israel
Shlomo Sand: The Invention of the Jewish People
I’m awaiting a copy of his third book in which he denounces his affiliation with the Jews, but meanwhile, you can read a short article he wrote in The Guardian, which, to me, is a far superior source of news than the NYT:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/10/shlomo-sand-i-wish-to-cease-considering-myself-a-jew

Weiss gave a talk at Chautauqua, NY July 26, 2018, which took a dig at Gaza that needed to be called out. I submitted the following letter to the local paper, which I believe they will publish. Outrageous.

“The central theme of Bari Weiss’s well-crafted and well-delivered July 26 talk addressed not letting political identity color one’s pronouncements on current issues. In my opinion though, she herself seriously violated this admonition. Her pro-Israel leanings led her to condemn the culture of Gaza relative to Israel. This she did claiming that Gaza treats gays more poorly than Israel. I would not deny that the quality of life of gays probably does suffer in Gaza. But a much more serious issue is how a country’s security forces treat those under its control. Israeli forces have killed over 300 and injured many thousands of unarmed Palestinians protestors in Gaza since this March. Gaza is wrong in its treatment of gays. Israel’s offenses against Palestinians are egregiously worse. Gaza may mistreat gays. Israel kills Palestinians. Both transgressions are to be condemned. But Israel’s transgressions are disproportionate. No, Ms Weiss, it is extremely hypocritical to say that Israel’s culture is better than Gaza’s at this time. “

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.